0
Research Papers

Predicting Sheet Forming Limit of Aluminum Alloys for Cold and Warm Forming by Developing a Ductile Failure Criterion

[+] Author and Article Information
Z. Q. Sheng

Mem. ASME
GM Warren Tech Center,
Warren, MI 48090
e-mail: ziqiang.sheng@gm.com

P. K. Mallick

Life Fellow ASME
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Michigan—Dearborn,
Dearborn, MI 48128
e-mail: pkm@umich.edu

1Corresponding author.

Manuscript received July 19, 2017; final manuscript received August 8, 2017; published online September 18, 2017. Editor: Y. Lawrence Yao.

J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 139(11), 111018 (Sep 18, 2017) (10 pages) Paper No: MANU-17-1455; doi: 10.1115/1.4037609 History: Received July 19, 2017; Revised August 08, 2017

In this study, the forming limit of aluminum alloy sheet materials is predicted by developing a ductile failure criterion (DFC). In the DFC, the damage growth is defined by Mclintock formula, stretching failure is defined at localized necking (LN) or fracture without LN, while the critical damage is defined by a so-called effect function, which reflects the effect of strain path and initial sheet thickness. In the first part of this study, the DFC is used to predict forming limit curves (FLCs) of six different aluminum sheet materials at room temperature. Then, the DFC is further developed for elevated temperature conditions by introducing an improved Zener–Hollomon parameter (Z), which is proposed to provide enhanced representation of the strain rate and temperature effect on limit strain. In warm forming condition, the improved DFC is used to predict the FLCs of Al5083-O and failure in a rectangular cup warm draw process on Al5182 + Mn. Comparison shows that all the predictions match quite well with the experimental measurements. Thanks to the proposal of effect function, the DFC needs calibration only in uniaxial tension, and thus, provides a promising potential to predict forming limit with reduced effort.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Comparison of FLCs obtained from the proposed ductile failure criterion (solid line and triangular markers) and experimental measurements at failure (unfilled markers): (a) A1100—test data from Ref. [22], (b) Al5182—test data from Ref. [32], (c) Al2008-T4—test data from Ref. [33], (d) Al5083-O (JIS-A5083P-O)—test data from Ref. [7], (e) Al–Mg–Si—test data from Ref. [9], and (f) Al6111—test data from Ref. [16]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Calculated FLCs (solid markers and solid line) and experimental data (unfilled markers) at different temperatures and strain rates for sheet material Al5083-O (JIS-A5083P-O)b: (a) 20 °C (293 K)a, (b) 80 °C (353 K)a, (c) 150 °C (423 K), (d) 200 °C (473 K), and (e) 300 °C (573 K) aFLCs in cross markers and dashed line are calculated by using Oyane criterion shown in (a) and (b). bThe test data are from Ref. [7].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Experimental and simulation setup for the warm forming: (a) experimental tooling setup from Ref. [40] and (b) FEM simulation model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Damage prediction in the cup draw warm forming: (a) damage at inner surface toward punch, (b) damage at outer surface, (c) failure location in experiment from Ref. [40], and (d) damage evolution at cross section along longitudinal direction as shown in (a)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In